Partial cystectomy with a bipolar sealing device in seven dogs with naturally occurring bladder tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of a bipolar sealing device (BSD) for partial cystectomy in dogs undergoing excision of bladder tumors. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, clinical pilot study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Seven client-owned dogs with nontrigonal urinary bladder lesions. METHODS: Dogs underwent a sealed partial cystectomy with a BSD, with or without cystoscopic guidance of the resection. The sealed cystectomy site was oversewn with a single-layer simple continuous pattern with monofilament absorbable suture. RESULTS: Sealed partial cystectomy was successfully performed in all dogs, with a median surgical duration of 69 minutes (range, 50-120). Lesions were located at the apex in six dogs and on the ventral midbody of the bladder in one dog. No urine leakage from the BSD luminal seal was visible prior to suture closure in three dogs, while varying amounts of urine leaked from the sealed site in four dogs. Suture was placed over the seal in grossly normal bladder tissue in six dogs and in the BSD peripheral thermal effect zone in one dog; in this latter dog, revision cystorrhaphy was required 3 days later because of uroabdomen. The other six dogs had no clinical evidence of urinary bladder healing complications. CONCLUSION: The integrity of the seal generated by the BSD tested here on partial cystectomies varied between dogs and was unpredictable. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Sealed partial cystectomy with a BSD may reduce exposure of urinary bladder luminal contents to the surgical site. However, the placement of sutures over the seal and through grossly normal bladder tissue is recommended to prevent postoperative uroabdomen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".